Re: [Idr] Changes to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry

Adrian Farrel <> Wed, 09 December 2020 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0B63A16C0; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 11:36:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Au46613s8AaE; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 11:36:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB5273A1667; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 11:36:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0B9JaEkD028139; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:36:14 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AEFB2204E; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:36:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 239082204C; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:36:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0B9JaCCE018216 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:36:13 GMT
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Susan Hares'" <>, "'IDR List'" <>
Cc: <>, "'Alvaro Retana'" <>
References: <0e3501d6cda2$fbf19d40$f3d4d7c0$> <003a01d6cdb0$78d288d0$6a779a70$>
In-Reply-To: <003a01d6cdb0$78d288d0$6a779a70$>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:36:12 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <100701d6ce62$8dfec810$a9fc5830$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGajGRKThIcpkdudESaynUGnDXA0QJsq4HLqlRGFhA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--8.530-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--8.530-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--8.529500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: gzVbiXtWD9vxIbpQ8BhdbOUKNN5hHcAB6Bf2N2T3maje6dEbvIyrxaxl G/oyG2KcmmgWMJS+ZT6MTb/6ckXgtw1889JZtN44uVFL9NtjSQIZskwWqoib3AbYcy9YQl6exFH j/TeD6Z8AvLOZV0bMfyl78EzLYzy2ck/S5O3O9Ff1WO1NzV/CYCLLJGCSgZKk1dmAedW/bZi3MG S6TxU7QJfkHFNE2DEXPTefreFsF4l9U0yZnC2t6bzgL/eLACDEbGZdWAetOyl3PducjiV5hREam nVaSH895aRi3+y26olhxjmVxn2kPPSQtYfOFz1BrMcMK3Nm8dnNUTeBBPKQKrZ25/Upg4v8V45x ebOrd5Il2tX1jMizT3foKb6+yJxn5wuS8mCcA9+0pXj1GkAfe+T2LLVgCh9qiR84olPm6b0nGr1 ZIK8xEJc8Pge/ETnwe0HF0ouRBVhzJ3Cc/dTPscK1Ib9JAALxktBHfvLK/JqbKItl61J/ycnjLT A/UDoAMwyzN4BmnMl0HSe131POnuJGF26G8SWypfzLa08EuFCnnu9AnIMRr3EEJsMgVob1NFxb/ 9fxqeqQRGddNdRUreCbsYTVqXMj
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Changes to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 19:36:20 -0000

Hi again, Sue.

-03 is now posted and I believe it addresses all outstanding issues.

A last call now would be perfect.

Alvaro, if you are able to pipeline your review, that would be handy.


-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Hares <> 
Sent: 08 December 2020 22:21
To:; 'IDR List' <>
Subject: RE: [Idr] Changes to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry


Since I do not want things to "get it the way", 
Let  me ask if you are ready for another WG LC on this text? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 3:45 PM
To: 'IDR List'
Subject: [Idr] Changes to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry


Thanks to all for the useful input and sorry for the long delay while
"things" got in the way.

I made some changes to the draft according to Alvaro's comments and then
updated the DE guidance per the discussions on list.

Ketan noted that point 6 of the guidance in RFC 7370 talks about "timeouts"
per RFC 7120. That only applies to early allocations, and that's not what
we're doing. I think it is still worth carrying text about what happens if
the document never becomes an RFC, so I have retained something similar, but
different. I hope this is consistent with what Les said.

Acee additionally suggested that code point requests should be "fully
transparent to the LSR list". I haven't added this, but it would be simple
to do if there is support for it.

Since the text changes are pretty much the whole draft, the easiest thing
seems to be to post an update and then invite you to review and comment. So
that's what I have done.


Idr mailing list